Glukoz İzleme Memnuniyet Anketi'nin Türkçe Versiyonunun Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Year 2025, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 421 - 431, 13.10.2025

Tuğba Bilgehan , İsmail Toygar

https://doi.org/10.52827/hititmedj.1704087

Abstract

Amaç: Glukoz İzleme Memnuniyet Anketi, diyabet yönetimini değerlendirmek için önemli bir araçtır, ancak Türk hastalardaki geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği henüz araştırılmamıştır. Bu çalışma, Glukoz İzleme Memnuniyet Anketi’nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerliliğini ve güvenilirliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu metodolojik, tanımlayıcı ve korelasyonel çalışma, Ekim 2023 ile Şubat 2024 arasında, Tip 1 Diyabet tanısı almış 220 hasta ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma verileri, Anket Formu, Glukoz İzleme Memnuniyet Anketi ve DSÖ-5 İyi Oluş İndeksi kullanılarak çevrimiçi anket tekniği ile toplanmıştır. İstatistiksel analizler IBM SPSS v27 ve IBM SPSS Amos v24 kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Güvenirlik analizlerinde ölçeğin tümü ve dört alt boyutu için Cronbach alfa katsayıları, madde-toplam korelasyonları, “madde silindiğinde Cronbach alfa” değerleri ve Spearman-Brown Split-Half analizi incelenmiştir. Yapı geçerliliği, Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile test edilmiş, varsayımlar kontrol edilmiştir ve maksimum olabilirlik yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca, DSÖ-5 İyi Oluş İndeksi ile paralel form güvenirliği değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Madde düzeyindeki içerik geçerliliği indeksleri 0.80 ile 1 arasında değişirken, ölçek düzeyindeki içerik geçerliliği indeksi 0.960 bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin Cronbach alfa katsayısı 0,897, alt boyutlar için ise 0,85 ile 0,90 arasında hesaplanmıştır. Madde-ölçek korelasyonları 0,347 ile 0,719 arasında değişmiştir ve “madde silindiğinde alfa” değerleri 0,85’in üzerinde kalmıştır. Spearman-Brown Split-Half analizinde ölçeğin iki yarısı arasında yüksek düzeyde pozitif yönlü bir korelasyon (0,885) bulunmuştur. DFA, dört faktörlü yapıyı doğrulamış ve uyum indeksleri kabul edilebilir düzeyde bulunmuştur. DSÖ-5 İndeksi ile hem ölçek hem de tüm alt boyutları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı pozitif korelasyonlar gözlemlenmiştir (p<0,001).
Sonuç: Bu çalışma, Glukoz İzleme Memnuniyet Anketi’nin, Türk toplumunda Tip 1 Diyabet hastalarında glukoz izleme memnuniyetini ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak, katılımcıların çoğunluğunu kadınların (%72,7) oluşturması, sonuçların genellenebilirliğini sınırlayabilir. Bu durum, gelecekteki araştırmalarda dikkate alınmalıdır

Keywords

Geçerlilik , Güvenilirlik , Kan glukoz izleme , Memnuniyet , Tip 1 Diyabet

Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey

Abstract

Objective: The Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey (GMSS) is crucial for assessing diabetes management, but its psychometric properties in Turkish patients remain unexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the GMSS.
Material and Method: This methodological, descriptive, and correlational study was conducted with 220 patients with type 1 diabetes between October 2023 and February 2024. Data were collected online using a sociodemographic questionnaire, the GMSS, and the WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS v27 and IBM SPSS Amos v24. Reliability was evaluated with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the overall scale and each subscale, Spearman-Brown Split-Half analysis, item–total correlations, and “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted.” Validity was examined through language validity, expert-based content validity, and construct validity using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Assumptions for CFA were checked, and the maximum likelihood method was applied. Parallel form reliability was also assessed with WHO-5.
Results: Item-level content validity indexes ranged between 0.80 and 1.00, while the scale-level index was 0.960. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.897 for the overall scale and ranged between 0.85 and 0.90 across the four subscales. Item–total correlations varied from 0.347 to 0.719, and “alpha if item deleted” values remained above 0.85. The Spearman-Brown Split-Half coefficient was 0.885. CFA supported the four-factor model with acceptable fit indices. Parallel form reliability showed significant positive correlations between the GMSS and WHO-5 (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The Turkish version of the GMSS demonstrated strong validity and reliability for assessing satisfaction with glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes patients. However, the predominance of female participants (72.7%) may limit the generalizability of the findings and should be considered in future research.

Keywords

Blood glucose monitoring , Patient satisfaction , Reliability , Type 1 Diabetes , Validity.

Ethical Statement

To conduct the study, we obtained written permissions from the Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Health Sciences Ethics Committee (Research code: 2023:362, Approval number: 27.10.2023/362-08) and the participants. All participants confirmed their informed consent after reading the aim, content, and data privacy principles of the study. The research was carried out by following the Helsinki Principles. We obtained written permission from the scale owner before the study.

Supporting Institution

ankara yıldırım beyazıt university

Thanks

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the individuals with type 1 diabetes who participated in this study.

References

• Organization WH. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020: World Health Organization; 2013.
• Mobasseri M, Shirmohammadi M, Amiri T, Vahed N, Hosseini Fard H, Ghojazadeh M. Prevalence and incidence of type 1 diabetes in the world: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Promot Perspect 2020;10(2):98-115.
• American Diabetes Association (ADA). Care in diabetes 2019. Diabetes Care 2019;42(1):13-28.
• American Diabetes Association (ADA) 6. Glycemic targets: Bilgehan T, Toygar İ. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2019. Diabetes Care 2019;42(Supplement 1):61-70.
• Association AD. 7. Approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care 2015;38(S1):41-48.
• Bailey TS, Grunberger G, Bode BW, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology 2016 Outpatient Glucose Monitoring Consensus Statement. Endocr Pract 2016;22(2):231-261.
• Health NIf, Excellence C. Type 1 diabetes in adults: diagnosis and management: NICE; 2015.
• Czupryniak L, Barkai L, Bolgarska S et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes: from evidence to clinical reality in Central and Eastern Europe—recommendations from the international Central-Eastern European expert group. Diabetes Technol Ther 2014;16(7):460-475.
• Visser MM, Charleer S, Fieuws S, et al. Comparing real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1): a 6-month, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021;397(10291):2275-2283.
• Franceschi R, Micheli F, Mozzillo E, et al. Intermittently Scanned and Continuous Glucose Monitor Systems: A Systematic Review on Psychological Outcomes in Pediatric Patients. Front Pediatr 2021;9:660173.
• Teo E, Hassan N, Tam W, Koh S. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in maintaining glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and meta-analysis. Diabetologia 2022;65(4):604-619.
• Seidu S, Kunutsor SK, Ajjan RA, Choudhary P. Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Interventional Evidence. Diabetes Care 2024;47(1):169-179.
• Mostrom P, Ahlen E, Imberg H, Hansson PO, Lind M. Adherence of self-monitoring of blood glucose in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden. BMJ Open Diab Res Care 2017;5(1):e000342.
• Taylor PJ, Thompson CH, Brinkworth GD. Effectiveness and acceptability of continuous glucose monitoring for type 2 diabetes management: A narrative review. J Diabetes Investig 2018;9(4):713-725.
• Girardin CM, Huot C, Gonthier M, Delvin E. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of biochemical perspectives and clinical use in type 1 diabetes. Clin Biochem 2009;42(3):136-142.
• Harrison S, McKane J, Clement A, et al. Continuous Monitoring of Glucose for Type 1 Diabetes: A Health Technology Assessment. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2018;18(2):1-160.
• Hauss O, Hinzmann R, Huffman B. Drug Interference in Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose and the Impact on Patient Safety: We Can Only Guard Against What We Are Looking for. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2024;18(3):727-732.
• Wang X, Luo JF, Qi L, Long Q, Guo J, Wang HH. Adherence to self-monitoring of blood glucose in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: current status and influential factors based on electronic questionnaires. Patient Prefer Adherence 2019;13:1269-1282.
• Lin M, Chen T, Fan G. Current status and influential factors associated with adherence to self-monitoring of blood glucose with type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in grassroots communities: a cross-sectional survey based on information-motivation-behavior skills model in China. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2023;14:1111565.
• Patton SR. Adherence to glycemic monitoring in diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015;9(3):668-675.
• Rahman SAU. Predicting Factors Affecting Glucose Monitoring Treatment Satisfaction and Drug Attitude Inventory (Adherence) Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; Cross-sectional Observational Study. Curr Diabetes Rev 2019;15(3):233-239.
• Emechebe N, Agu N, Malmi M, Zgibor JC. Examining the Association between Treatment Satisfaction and Medication Adherence among Patients with Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes 2018;67.
• Bakar ZA, Fahrni ML, Khan TM. Patient satisfaction and medication adherence assessment amongst patients at the diabetes medication therapy adherence clinic. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2016;10(2 Suppl 1):139-143.
• Messer LH, Johnson R, Driscoll KA, Jones J. Best friend or spy: a qualitative meta-synthesis on the impact of continuous glucose monitoring on life with Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2018;35(4):409-418.
• Messer LH, Berget C, Beatson C, Polsky S, Forlenza GP. Preserving Skin Integrity with Chronic Device Use in Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20(S2):254-264.
• Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Hessler D, Edelman SV. Development of a New Measure for Assessing Glucose Monitoring Device-Related Treatment Satisfaction and Quality of Life. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17(9):657-663.
• Lu H, Lu X, Gao H, Gao Y. Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey. Chinese General Practice 2020;23(14):1812.
• Hermanns N, Ehrmann D, Schipfer M, Kroger J, Haak T, Kulzer B. The impact of a structured education and treatment programme (FLASH) for people with diabetes using a flash sensor-based glucose monitoring system: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2019;150:111-121.
• Hood KK, Laffel LM, Danne T, et al. Lived Experience of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Hybrid Closed-Loop: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Perspectives. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23(12):857-861.
• Al Hayek A, Al Dawish M, El Jammal M. The Impact of Flash Glucose Monitoring on Markers of Glycaemic Control and Patient Satisfaction in Type 2 Diabetes. Cureus 2021;13(6):e16007.
• Lukacs A, Szerencsi LB, Barkai L. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) satisfaction and its effect on mental health and glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes. Physiol Int 2022;109(4):501-510.
• Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for testing and estimating coefficient alpha. J Educ Behav Stat 2002;27(4):335-340.
• WN A. Sample size calculator (web) 2024 [cited 2024 05.13.2024]. Available from: http://wnarifin.github.io .
• Eser E, Cevik C, Baydur H, et al. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the WHO-5, in adults and older adults for its use in primary care settings. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2019;20:e100.
• Dorer B. ESS round 6 translation guidelines. Mannheim: European Social Survey, GESIS. 2012;1.
• Coster WJ, Mancini MC. Recommendations for translation and cross-cultural adaptation of instruments for occupational therapy research and practice. Rev Ter Ocup Univ São Paulo 2015;26(1):50-57.
• Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH & QuickDASH outcome measures. Institute for Work & Health 2007;1(1):1-45.
• Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res 1992;5(4):194-197.
• Veneziano L. A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. Am J Health Behav 1997;21(1):67-70.
• Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, Nikanfar AR. Design and Implementation Content Validity Study: Development of an instrument for measuring Patient-Centered Communication. J Caring Sci 2015;4(2):165-178.
• Lawshe C. A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity. Personnel Psychol 1975.
• Murat YM. Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Istanbul Business Research 2017;46(1):74-85.
• Kilic AF, Doğan N. Comparison of confirmatory factor analysis estimation methods on mixed-format data. Int J Assess Tools Educ 2021;8(1):21-37.
• Ramsey R. What are reaction time indices of automatic imitation measuring? Conscious Cogn 2018;65:240-254.
• Chin C-L, Yao G. Convergent Validity. In: Michalos AC, editor. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014. p.1275-1276.
• Ravinder EB, Saraswathi A. Literature review of Cronbach alpha coefficient (α) and McDonald’s omega coefficient (Ω). Eur J Mol Clin Med 2020;7(6):2943-2949.
• de Vet HC, Mokkink LB, Mosmuller DG, Terwee CB. Spearman–Brown prophecy formula and Cronbach’s alpha: different faces of reliability and opportunities for new applications. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;85:45-49.
• Paulsen J, BrckaLorenz A. Internal consistency statistics. Faculty Survey of Student Engagement; 2017.
• Behavioral Diabetes Institute. Scales and Measures: Behavioral Diabetes; 2024 [Available from: https://behavioraldiabetes.org/scales-and-measures/#1700007829694-294ec8b1-1535 ].
• Johnson B, Christensen L. Educational research (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches) (Çev. Ed. SB Demir). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap. 2014.
• DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT. Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications; 2021.
• Karagöz Y. SPSS 23 ve AMOS 23 uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2016.
• Kartal M, Bardakçı S. Reliability and validity analysis with SPSS and AMOS applied examples. Ankara, Türkiye: Akademisyen Publishing; 2018.
• Özdamar K. Scale and test development structural equation modeling. Ankara: Nisan Kitabevi Publishing; 2016:6-286.
• Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2013.
• Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, Özdamar K, Sanisoğlu S. Confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices: Review. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci 2013;33(1):210-223.
• Lam LW. Impact of competitiveness on salespeople’s commitment and performance. J Bus Res 2012;65(9):1328-1334.
• Seçer İ. Psychological test development and adaptation process: SPSS and LISREL applications. Ankara: Anı Publishing; 2015.